A friend of mine recently sent me a blog post from about a year ago entitled Is Mental Illness Actually Biblical? I read that post and one that preceded it and one that followed it. All three are penned by Stephen Altrogge and posted at the Blazing Center.

I’ve read Stephen’s posts many times on various topics over the past few years. I appreciate his passionate commitment to the Lord and his compassionate commitment to people—especially to hurting people.

So I’d like to briefly engage Stephen’s thinking in Is Mental Illness Actually Biblical?

Informed Attribution 

Stephen began by noting that he:

“Recently read two articles by a well-known Christian author who is also closely connected to a Christian counseling foundation. The articles essentially argued that mental illness was a social construct created by secular doctors and psychiatrists, and therefore, is not biblical. So, when a person is depressed, he is really just experiencing sadness, and to try to treat it medically is to short circuit the power of God. When a person is anxious, she is really just experiencing worry, and to treat it medically is a secular answer to a spiritual problem. You get the idea.”

In literature there is a phrase—“informed attribution”—that occurs when an author, instead of demonstrating that a character has a certain characteristic, simply informs the audience that they do. In the absence of a link to the original two articles that Stephen is referencing, what we have is “informed attribution.” Stephen tells us what he perceives the articles essentially argue. Then he precedes to share his perception of the implications. Perhaps Stephen’s perceptions are spot on, but without a link and without any quotes, it’s really impossible to know.

He notes that the author is closely associated “to a Christian counseling foundation.” I wish I knew which author and which foundation. Is he referencing CCEF? I don’t know. I do know this—the CCEF authors I read are not saying what Stephen implies this author is saying. I’m not suggesting Stephen held back the links or the name of the author so he could make them say whatever he wanted. My guess is that Stephen held back the name/links out of perceived courtesy—so he was not talking bad about someone not in the room. Whatever the reason(s)—I sure wish I had the links…

False Syllogism 

Stephen then begins to engage the social-construction view of mental illness by developing a brief theology of total depravity. As he writes:

“I would argue that if we truly believe in total depravity, then we must accept mental illness as a biblical category. If I believe that sin has affected every part of my body, including my brain, then it shouldn’t surprise me when my brain doesn’t work correctly. I’m not surprised when I get a cold; why should I be surprised if I experience mental illness? To say that depression, anxiety, ADHD, bipolar, and every other disorder, are purely spiritual disorders is to ignore the fact that we are both body and soul. Mental illness is not something invented by secular psychiatrists. Rather, it is part and parcel with living in fallen, sinful world.”

Here’s the false syllogism I see in Stephen’s thinking:

• A: The author thinks mental illness is a social construct.
• B: Mental illness is proven by the doctrine of total depravity.
• C: The Bible teaches total depravity.
• D: The author is wrong to say there is no such thing as mental illness.

Do you see the logic leaps here? To say that mental illness may be a socially-constructed concept is not to say that one denies the fallenness of the body. To say that mental illness may be a socially-constructed concept is not to say that one denies that psychotropic medications can be a legitimate source of help in appropriate cases.

Put positively, I can believe all of the following:

• A: “Mental illness” is an ill-defined term socially-constructed by the modern psychiatric world without a solid foundation in medicine or in psychological research. See Charles Hodges’ copious research in Good Mood Bad Mood.
• B: I believe in the doctrine of total depravity, but total depravity does not prove the validity of the ill-defined term “mental illness.”
• C: I believe in the fallenness of the body and the brain.
• D: I believe that psychotropic medications can be a legitimate source of help in appropriate cases.
• E: I believe the church should lead the way in comprehensive and compassionate care for all people facing intense mental and emotional struggles.

Missing Definition 

I read three of Stephen’s articles on mental illness: Is Mental Illness Actually Biblical?, the post that preceded it and one that followed it. Yet I never read a definition of mental illness. Charles Hodges, MD, explains what happens when we fail to define what we mean by “mental illness.”

“The problem often can be with the undefined term mental illness. In order to be compassionate, the church does not need to agree to a concept whose definition is in dispute. The current definition of mental illness is the DSM 5. It comes with controversy because many believe it takes normal human behavior and redefines it as disease. This is not a view held just by a small segment of biblical counselors; it is the view of a significant number of those in psychology and other counseling disciplines.” (See Dr. Hodges full article here. And see: “America’s Depression Diagnoses and How to Fix It.”)

Stephen argues for the acceptance of the term mental illness, but he does not define what the world means by it. While Stephen does not define mental illness, he does attempt to link the biblical doctrine of total depravity to the world’s construct of mental illness. I think it’s another false syllogism and it goes like this:

• A: Total depravity = B. A Fallen soul/body/brain = C. “Total depravity proves the world’s ill-defined term “mental illness.”

Let’s look again at one of Stephen’s quotes:

“I’m not surprised when I get a cold; why should I be surprised if I experience mental illness? To say that depression, anxiety, ADHD, bipolar, and every other disorder, are purely spiritual disorders is to ignore the fact that we are both body and soul.”

Let’s take the first example Stephen gives of mental illness—depression. Dr. Hodges quotes numerous psychiatric sources (not simply outliers) who believe that up to 90% of what we now label mental illness/depression is actually normal sadness that should not be treated by and will not be helped by psychotropic medication.

Now, for the 10% of cases of depression where the cause is unknown or there is not recognizable life loss/normal sadness, then let’s consider the appropriateness of psychotropic medication as one link in a compassionate and comprehensive care plan. However, for the 90% who are going through normal sadness, to place a label on them of “mental illness/clinical depression” is neither accurate, helpful, or compassionate.

You also might want to see the recent New York Times op-ed by psychiatrist Julie Holland on the dangers of over-prescribing and over-medicating women for depression that is not truly depression: Medicating Women’s Feelings.

So…what would I say instead? I would tweak Stephen’s statement like this:

“To say that the vast majority of what is currently diagnosed as depression, anxiety, ADHD, and bipolar are always biologically-based, brain disorders is to ignore the psychiatric research and to ignore the biblical revelation that we are both body and soul.”

“To say that all physical issues—a matter of the brain/body—is the same as the ill-defined term “mental illness” ignores the psychiatric research.”

Therefore, we require great wisdom to discern where matters are physical, where they are spiritual, and where they are a combination of both.

I am not anti-mental illness. Instead, I am pro clarity of definitions based upon biblical revelation and scientific research.

Mental Illness and the Church: A Compassionate, Comprehensive Approach 

I’m not writing as a pie-in-the sky academic (if there are such creatures). I write as someone who worked four years in a psychiatric inpatient unit. I write as someone with a Ph.D. in Counselor Education from Kent State University. I write as someone who has pastored three churches and counseled literally 1,000s of struggling, hurting people.

And, I agree with Stephen that the church must be the place for compassionate and comprehensive care—caring carefully by understanding that we are embodied souls, fearfully and wonderfully made yet living in a fallen world in fallen bodies.

What does that compassionate, comprehensive care look like? For a beginning answer to that question, consider reading:

Mental Illness and the Church: Developing a Compassionate and Comprehensive Biblical Counseling Response.

Here’s the bit.ly link: http://bit.ly/MIandChurch

Join the Conversation 

How would you define mental illness?

Is the world’s ill-defined term “mental illness” the same as the biblical doctrine of total depravity?

RPM Ministries: Equipping You to Change Lives with Christ’s Changeless Truth